PERPETRATED BY Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi ‘SEDITION’ IS THE BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL,

His lawyer Eric Paulsen said that the police had told a magistrate this morning that Adam is also being investigated for participating in an act “detrimental to parliamentary democracy”, which is now a crime based on a newly amended provision under the Penal Code which came into effect late last year.

Paulsen said that this provision under the Penal Code was “too general”.  Adam is investigated for the remarks he made during a public forum at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH) on May 13, where he, alongside several other activists, urged the people to stage a massive street protest against electoral fraud.

Investigations are also based on a report by Free Malaysia Today, quoting rally organisers telling the forum that they will use the rally to “topple the government”.  This means Adam could face up to 20 years in jail if he is found guilty under the Penal Code.

After a day, no statements taken
 
Magistrate Muzlinda Mohd had ordered for Adam to be remanded for five days due to the nature of the alleged offence, Paulsen told Malaysiakini.

The 24-year-old Adam, best known for being suspended for three semesters by University Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) for lowering a flag bearing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s image in front of the UMNO headquarters two years ago, was arrested in Bangsar Utama at 3pm yesterday.

At the time of writing, the Police have yet to record his statement, which according to Paulsen, suggests that the arrest was an act of punishment.

“It has been more than 24 hours, and he has yet to have his statement taken,” Paulsen said, saying that Adam is still in a lock-up at the Jinjang Police station.

Paulsen, who is representing Adam along with Latheefa Koya, said that they are unhappy with the remand period and will file an objection tomorrow. He also said that Adam’s arrest and subsequent investigation signals lack of tolerance for dissent by the Najib administration.

At the heart of the problem lies the confusion created by the tension between excessive political correctness that mandates a certain level of touchiness about symbolic actions and celebrates the intolerance of any perceived faults, and the underlying hypocrisy that governs behaviour in the real world. We profess one thing and practise another be it in questions of race, gender, ethnicity or religion. At one level we must be respectful of other cultures, faiths and viewpoints that we may not fully understand or agree with, but the moment that involves anything more than symbolic agreement, we have a problem. It does not help that matters get muddied by all parties seeking to get mileage out of these controversies, with each posturing for its own perceived constituencies.

The use of a rights framework converts relative truths or untruths into absolutes. Fatwas are issued on both sides, in a manner of speaking. The idea of freedom of expression is pushed to its limit, in order to exhibit the principle, and the right to get offended hardens into a self-righteous licence to violence. Of course, the battle is not always an equal one as we have seen in this country recently, for those holding the banner for the right to free speech do not have the political clout of those being offended but as we saw in Norway, it works the other way too. The touchiness of activists is no less fearsome than that of religious zealots, nor is their mode of reaction any less religious.

In a multi-cultural environment of any kind, good behaviour is much more about reciprocity than about rights. Social mechanisms have much greater subtlety and flexibility than do rigid notions of right and wrong. The problem today is that bad behaviour gets valorised on all sides; those taking extreme positions get rewarded. Minor acts of intolerance or provocation make headlines while major acts of reconciliation and accommodation go unheralded.

Intemperateness is mistaken for strength and what should been the realm of some hard but good natured negotiation of intangibles becomes an arena of conflict where every concession is the loss of something fundamental.

The government’s reactions in recent times are both difficult to understand and defend. At its worst, they have been cynical and expedient and at its best naive and silly. But deeper issues lurk beneath this surface, and those are unlikely to be resolved by the framework and vocabularies we have at our disposal. They need a kind of wisdom that we currently do not seem to have a way of reaching.
The really interesting question is as to why this entire phenomenon exists in the form it does- why do governments act as they do and why do groups- religious, cultural and social react with such touchiness, often to events and utterances they have personally not been exposed to, like in the case of  how come no actions seen taken against Perkosa ‘ katak ‘ Ali on numerous occasions for inciting racial sentiments ? Double standards, right ? In fact BN esp UMNO, MSM, TV should be charged but what to do, all the institutions is being made to work in favour of umno and only umno. Voters,bn/umno has CHAINED US FOR 50 YEARS please don’t be chained by BN/umno again this coming 13 GE.  Sedition? Since when had UMNO become a national institution that saying something against it is tantamount to sedition and an act of betrayal of nation? Some who contribute here say that Tian Chua deserves it as he had insulted the fallen fighters. From what I can recall of the many articles on the Sulu Attack, not a SINGLE writer cast aspersions on Malaysia’s warriors who died in defending the country but almost to a man, everyone, including me, had furious savage comments to make on what passes for our leadership from the Prime Minister to the Home Minister, Defence Minister, the IGP, and the Armed Forces Chief. They seemed totally at sea and were running around like headless chickens, with Hishamuddin bravely posing for photo shoots. These are the people who should be charged, for gross dereliction of duty in the face of enemy attack. Tian Chua may at times shoot his mouth off but if he is wrong, then so is almost every one of the thousands who comment in the alternate media. This charge will backfire back to UMNO as when charges involving opposition party members the AG office will workn at double paces. A Ghani Patil in deed has shown his colour on such charge but he continue to wear a chamereon coat which will surely have his days numbered when People’s Power is excercised at GE13.This is how this evil regime is taking out opposition MPs one by one with charges based on exaggeration by their chaingang. Well, soon, more opposition will be charged for all kinds of rubbish. GrandMamak, MooEatDung, etc threatening sequel to May 13, are ok. Even showing of that seditious Tanda Putera to so many with the obvious sole reason to incite violence is also ok. And the list go on…. so immoral and evil – and it defies logic why it is still supported by so many who are ignorant or equaliy evil. Syaitan is way too powerful, hope every righteous and god-fearing rakayt will rise and fight with these devilsa time tun Mahathir has raised the May13 issue thus scaring the innocent public. Why no action taken ?we often hear of the triggers for the outrage only through reports of outrage; we become offended upon hearing that we are offended. One proximate explanation is that in a 24X7 media world that is intricately inter-connected, any small act of taking umbrage becomes blown up instantly and becomes mainstream news; in a fragmented political system, shorn of any ideological beliefs, any lever to organise voters in a collective becomes attractive, both as a device to catch votes as well as a form of insurance. Principles are abstract and secular, while sentiments potentially translate into voting blocs.

124A. Sedition – Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1 – The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2 – Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government with a view to obtain their alterations by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3 – Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Therefore, sedition is defined as an act which causes contempt or hatred or disaffection against the “government” and not against the “country” or the “constitution”.

Most of us who regularly use RTI, expose corruption and criticize governments could be easily prosecuted under the above section. Everyday, opposition parties incite hatred against the government in power. Therefore, all opposition leaders could be held guilty of “sedition”. If strictly implemented, this section could muzzle dissent and democracy.

Interestingly, such grave offences, which have the potential of destabilizing Indian economy, are not treated as “sedition”. For instance, A Raja caused a loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crores to India. This is almost 30% of annual Gross Tax Receipts of Government of India. Therefore, he almost threatened the economic sovereignty of India. Interestingly, that is not sedition. That is “corruption”, which invites the same punishment as would be awarded to a food inspector who takes Rs 1000 bribe to make a ration card.

IPC was written in 1861 by the British. Their aim was to economically plunder India. Anyone who resisted in those efforts was a traitor and his activities were declared as “sedition”. Unfortunately, after independence, we continued with the same system. Under our present legal system, economic plundering of Indian revenues and Indian resources is a petty offence called “corruption”. But anyone who resists that or has “disaffection” towards such practices is guilty of “sedition”.

Section 120B of IPC is another section under which Binayak Sen has been convicted. Section 120B talks of criminal conspiracy. If anyone conspires in a crime, he is liable for the same punishment as is the person committing the original crime.

Nira Radia tapes show how many journalists, many businessmen and many politicians conspired to threaten economic stability of India; how they threatened the constitution of India by putting the cabinet berths of Indian government on sale?  But the British laws under which we work do not treat this as sedition.

In the least, all these people are guilty of criminal conspiracy under section 120B read with Prevention of Corruption Act.Dr Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, fully knew that Raja was looting the nation. It was the constitutional duty of Dr Singh to stop that. Rather he turned a blind eye. Subsequently, the Prime Minister even tried to protect Raja’s misdeeds in various ways. He sat on the request of Dr Subramaniam Swamy for more than eleven months seeking permission to prosecute Raja. Then, the CBI directly working under the Prime Minister did not do any investigation in that case for almost a year after registering FIR despite strong displeasure expressed by Supreme Court on several occasions. CBI got into action only when the Court decided to monitor CBI’s investigations. Isn’t this sedition? However, the British laws under which independent India functions, do not treat such serious charges as sedition.

In the least, Dr Singh is guilty of criminal conspiracy under section 120B read with Prevention of Corruption Act.

Unfortunately, the role of none of the above players would even be honestly investigated because CBI, which is the agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting them, works directly under the command of the accused. Even if they were tried and convicted, they would be guilty of “corruption”, which carries a punishment of six months to a maximum of seven years.

Media has been replete with stories on how Dr Raman Singh, Mr Naveen Patnaik and Mr Yeddyurappa have been selling the minerals of this country at throwaway prices. They are giving licenses for mining, not because these minerals are needed for India, but for exporting most of these minerals. The state gets a royalty of Rs 27 per ton of iron ore mined, cost of mining is roughly Rs 300 per ton and the mining company sells it in international market at Rs 6000 per ton. The economics of the mining of almost all minerals is as absurd. Not just that, mining companies, with full knowledge of government agencies, mine much more illegally than they are permitted. Illegal mining is so rampant that it is feared that some of the mines would be empty within the next few years.

Royalty rates are fixed by central government. Licenses and permissions are given together by both central and state governments. Aren’t all these honorable Chief Ministers, who are openly plundering the national resources, in collusion with various ministries of Central Government, guilty of sedition? The party antagonism vanishes when it comes to plundering the nation. Complete bonhomie is seen between BJP in states and congress at the centre. They are doing precisely what their British predecessors did. Loot this country and take the wealth out of the country. Since we work under the same British laws, their loot is not a serious crime but anyone who dares to “hate” their activities or resist them and incite “contempt” or “disaffection” against such open loot of the country is a crime.

Our laws do not even recognize these crimes, which have the potential to destabilize India, as serious enough to be termed “sedition”.

Sedition, under the present law, is to cause “disaffection” against such corrupt and unjust governments. How can one call himself an Indian and still have “affection” for such practices? We fought against British not because of the color of their skin but also because of the exploitative character of their government. Unfortunately, the character of the present governments has become far more exploitative.

One may have strong “disaffection” for government of India, its policies and its systems. But one may love India. One may love Indians. But under section 124A of IPC, one would be guilty of sedition.

The lack of outrage at the conclusion by Delhi police that there is “a fit case” to charge Kashmiri separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani and author Arundhati Roy with sedition for what the two said in a seminar at Delhi is appalling. Only a few civil liberties advocates spoke out against the move. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party openly bayed for their blood. Congress maintained a studied silence. The minor parties were just not bothered. Union law minister Veerappa Moily didn’t come out to well when he suggested that freedom of expression couldn’t’ be used to violate “patriotic sentiments”, whatever that means.

The incident isn’t the best advertisement of either our democracy or our famed culture of tolerance. Sedition involves an attempt to overthrow legally constituted government. As far as I know, neither Geelani nor Roy did anything remotely in that direction. What they said was definitely against the government line on Kashmir. It was also against the popular opinion. Mercifully, there is no law that obligates us to toe the government or popular line. Going against it is dissent, not sedition; and democracies thrive on dissent. They do not shun it.

Geelani’s views about Kashmir are well known. He has made no secret of them. Most other Indians do not agree with him and even find his views offensive. Yet, he is an Indian citizen and entitled to his individual liberties as much as any other. Freedom in a society is tested by its tolerance of what most of its members consider offensive. Freedom to say goody-goody thing is actually no freedom. If we assert before the world that Kashmiris in India are living in freedom, it means even those Kashmiris who would rather not be part of India. They have as much right to air their opinion as the rest of us have to assert Kashmir is an integral part of India. If we find Geelani’s ideas offensive then let us come up with better ideas to counter them.

I am never tired of recalling the historic 1989 ruling by the US Supreme Court upholding the right of American citizens to burn the national flag. Justice Anthony M Kennedy, who wrote a concurring opinion with the majority, put it so memorably, “It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protect those who hold it in contempt.” By so doing, the court added to the majesty of the American flag and the constitution, it did not imperil them.

The same goes for Roy too. She holds strong views and expresses them forcefully. Too forcefully for many people’s comfort. Yet, her presence lends balance and a provocative edge to the discourse that would otherwise have been too one-sided. She raises uncomfortable, often troubling, questions. Of course, she does not provide all the answers. Sometimes her stance is contradictory and confusing. For instance, she herself uses airlines and railways but the development model she recommends would deny these to most others. If we are to build more airports, planes, and railways then land, steel, and aluminium for them have to come from somewhere. That would require some people to be displaced. One cannot be totally against displacement and still enjoy these facilities for oneself.

However, her views are not the point. The point is her ability to say it in the manner she chooses. Of course, the moment she picks up a gun or begins to organize an army to overthrow the constitutional authority, she can be booked and restrained. But if she merely argues-much to the discomfiture many, of course – that Indian state tramples upon its own citizens, that it is sold out to corporate interests, that each new mine is a huge conspiracy to dispossess the poor and the defenceless, then she has to be countered with better arguments that it is not so. Threatening her with court cases actually proves her point.

In any case, presence of people like her or Medha Patkar ensures that the debate is well rounded and all voices are heard. It may not stop the development but it at least would ensure better compensation and rehabilitation package for the displaced. That way, she is also being patriotic. When she challenges our ideas on Kashmir, does she not force a thought about where things have gone wrong and how we may right them? That also is a patriotic act. Now, should Mr Moily be booked because he violates this sentiment?

In the end, it is not about Geelani or Roy. It is about our own idea of India. It is sad that police even in national capital cannot differentiate between an act of rebellion and a contrary opinion. It is sadder that the entire political establishment remains silent when citizens are threatened with criminal charges for voicing opinions-howsoever unpopular or offensive. This is only to be expected at a time when books are withdrawn from universities because some goon decides it is written in bad taste. It is time for us to rise and take the matter of our freedoms into our own hands. If we won’t use our liberties, sure as hell we would lose them.

You’ve got to hand it to the Indian state. Cocking a snook at critics who have long accused it of being a soft target for terror attacks and insurrectionary militias, the Indian state has shown just how tough it can be when it wants to. It has struck a mighty blow for democracy and in one stroke symbolically put paid to the so-called Naxal menace which reportedly has affected over 160 of the country’s 600 districts and has been described by the prime minister as the biggest single threat to national security, more so even than Pakistan-inspired terrorism. And how has the Indian state achieved this? By arresting and giving a life sentence for sedition to a frail, ailing, 61-year-old doctor-cum-social worker who has dedicated his life to the welfare of tribal communities and other marginalised people too small and insignificant to be noticed by the Indian state from the remote and lofty perch that it occupies.

Despite appeals made not only by 22 Nobel laureates, including Amartya Sen, but also by numerous human rights organisations around the world that the detainee, Binayak Sen, be released, the Indian state has stood its ground with admirable firmness. Sen had been found guilty by a court of law for his ‘linkages’ with Maoists, whose avowed agenda is the violent overthrow of the Indian state. As such, under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, Sen is guilty of sedition, a crime which carries a life sentence. That the case against Sen is based on a highly questionable police report which, among other anomalies, contained a ‘typographical error’ regarding the exact locations where the alleged ‘linkages’ took place has not deterred the course of justice. Nor does it matter a whit that there is no evidence whatsoever that the accused has himself ever committed or instigated acts of violence. He has been found guilty by association; of being a Maoist sympathiser if not an actual Maoist. That is enough for the Indian state which, tired of being called a softie, wants to show the world, but most of all wants to show itself, just how tough it really is. Throw the guy in jail. And while you’re at it, throw away the key.

Binayak Sen is not the only one on whom the Indian state recently demonstrated its toughness. Arundhati Roy and Hurriyat leader S A S Geelani both have had charges of sedition slapped on them for espousing the cause of Kashmiri azadi. The Indian state – which appears to have a 100% tolerance for scams and swindles of various kinds – has zero tolerance for sedition. As interpreted by the state, sedition seems to mean not just any attempt to overthrow it but to in any way show sympathy with those who question or rebel against the legitimacy of its actions.

That Sen’s imprisonment has in no way helped to quell Maoism (indeed the home minister recently admitted that Naxals still had “the capacity to strike at will, giving them the upper hand over security forces”) does not matter. Nor does it appear to matter that, even as the home minister was making his statement about the undiminished Maoist threat, the finance minister said that the spread of Naxalism in backward areas was a “reflection of our failure in meeting the expectations of the local people”. Is the minister’s admission of ‘failure’ itself liable to the charge of sedition in that it undermines the authority of the state?

Sen’s imprisonment will not in any way help in tackling the Naxal ‘menace’. The sedition charges against Roy and Geelani will not in any way aid in tackling the 62-year-old Kashmir problem. But perhaps the real purpose of such measures is not to solve these deeply entrenched problems – born out of the chronic weakness of the state’s policies – but only to show the selective toughness of the state. Perhaps the reality of weakness is not important; the perception of toughness is.

If this is indeed so, ‘sedition’ is the biggest scam of all, perpetrated by the state.